[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SECOND CHANCE ACT OF 2005 (PART II): AN EXAMINATION OF DRUG TREATMENT
PROGRAMS NEEDED TO ENSURE SUCCESSFUL RE-ENTRY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 1704
__________
FEBRUARY 8, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-86
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 2006
25-924 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
MIKE PENCE, Indiana DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida MAXINE WATERS, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
RIC KELLER, Florida WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Michael Volkov, Chief Counsel
Jason Cervenak, Full Committee Counsel
Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
FEBRUARY 8, 2006
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security............................... 1
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 2
WITNESSES
Dr. Nora Volkow, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse,
National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Mr. Ken Batten, Director, Office of Substance Abuse Services,
Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation &
Substance Abuse Services
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Statement............................................. 14
Ms. Pamela Rodriguez, Executive Vice President, Treatment
Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC), Inc.
Oral Testimony................................................. 20
Prepared Statement............................................. 22
Ms. Lorna Hogan, Associate Director of Sacred Authority, Parent
Advocate, The Rebecca Project for Human Rights, Washington, DC
Oral Testimony................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security....................................................... 35
Prepared Statement of Scott A. Sylak, Executive Director, Lucas
County TASC, Inc............................................... 36
Prepared Statement of William F. Nelson, Director of Correctional
Services, Volunteers of America................................ 38
Addendum to the testimony of Pamela Rodriguez, Executive Vice
President, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC),
Inc............................................................ 40
TASC Brief Overview: Studies on Effectiveness of Case Management,
submitted by Pamela Rodriguez, Executive Vice President,
Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC), Inc........ 42
TASC Brief Overview: Studies on Effectiveness of Treatment,
submitted by Pamela Rodriguez, Executive Vice President,
Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC), Inc........ 43
GLATTC Research Update: Coerced Drug Treatment for Offenders:
Does It Work?, submitted by Pamela Rodriguez, Executive Vice
President, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC),
Inc............................................................ 46
Re-Entry Policy Council: Substance Abuse and Re-Entry Statistics,
submitted by the Council of State Governments.................. 48
SECOND CHANCE ACT OF 2005 (PART II): AN EXAMINATION OF DRUG TREATMENT
PROGRAMS NEEDED TO ENSURE SUCCESSFUL RE-ENTRY
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard
Coble (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Coble. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I want to
welcome each of you to an important hearing to examine the
issue of drug treatment programs and prisoner re-entry.
At the outset, I want to thank Mr. Bobby Scott, the Ranking
Member, and his counsel Mr. Vassar, for their cooperation and
support, as well as our counsel Mike, for this hearing and,
Bobby, for your commitment to broaden H.R. 1704, the Second
Chance Act to include drug treatment and other innovative
programs. The Second Chance Act is a unique proposal which, if
enacted, will reduce crime, promote community safety, and give
offenders a true second chance in life.
In my opinion, if an offender has paid his or her debt to
society, it is incumbent on the Government to give these
offenders a true second chance to become law-abiding and
productive members of society. After all, in many cases we are
talking about people who truly need a second chance, people who
are in need of jobs, education, drug treatment, and other
assistance so that they can help themselves maintain their
families and better their communities.
Today we are focusing on the issue of drug treatment for
offenders. The statistics of the drug problem and offenders are
staggering. Fifty-seven percent of Federal and 70 percent of
State inmates have used drugs regularly prior to prison, with
some estimates of offender involvement with drugs or alcohol
around the time of offense as high as 84 percent. The Bureau of
Justice Statistics Trends in State Parole, 1990-2000, 60 to 83
percent of the Nation's correctional population have used drugs
at some point in their lives. A Bureau of Justice Statistics
analysis further indicates that only 33 percent of Federal and
36 percent of State inmates have participated in residential
inpatient treatment programs for alcohol and drug abuse 12
months prior to their release.
The problem must be addressed. Any offender re-entry
strategy has to include comprehensive and innovative drug
treatment programs. The President has stated his support for
increasing drug treatment on numerous occasions. In 2002,
President Bush explained we must aggressively promote drug
treatment because a nation that is tough on drugs must also be
compassionate to those addicted to drugs.
Today there are 3.9 million drug users in America who need,
but who do not receive, help. And we have to do something about
that problem.
As we examine innovative drug treatment programs, I want to
emphasize to everyone what I believe should be the single and
most important question: Is there evidence that such a program
works? If so, I would like to look at the need for such a drug
treatment program in a particular setting, how such a program
fits into an overall comprehensive approach to re-entry,
maintaining continuous care, and how high a priority should we
place upon authorizing such a drug treatment program.
I want to reiterate my commitment to working with my good
friend Bobby Scott and the other colleagues who are involved in
this matter, so that we can bring to the full Committee,
hopefully, a comprehensive approach to the re-entry problem.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses about new
and innovative drug treatment programs. I am now pleased to
yield to the Ranking Member, the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to welcome
Greg Barnes, who is substituting for Bobby Vassar today. He is
out with the ATF--somewhere out in never-never land.
Mr. Coble. If the gentleman will yield. I think my counsel
may have blown the whistle on Bobby earlier today.
Mr. Scott. Well, anyway, I thank you for your dedication in
developing an effective prisoner re-entry system in this
country and for the bipartisan, open-minded approach you and
your staff, particularly Mike, have taken in so doing. I would
also like to thank you for holding this second hearing this
Congress on prisoner re-entry issues and in particular for this
hearing emphasizing the importance of drug treatment and
assuring that released offenders remain crime-free and live
productive lives.
I fully expect that today we will hear what has been clear
for some time, that drug treatment for returning offenders
greatly reduces recidivism and saves more money than it costs
in avoided law enforcement and incarceration expenditures. And
while assisting returning offenders is a cost-effective reason
to develop and expand effective prisoner re-entry programs, I
know that you are aware, as I am, Mr. Chairman, that the most
important reason for doing so is because it better assures that
members of the public will not have to suffer as victims of
crime due to recidivism.
This year, close to 700,000 people will leave prisons in
the United States. Most of them are ill-prepared to succeed in
earning a living and leading a law-abiding life, and the
resources available to assist them are very limited. The
addition of a felony record and a prison stay certainly doesn't
help them get a job. Prisoners are released with limited
education, limited resources and job skills, disqualifications
from many Federal benefits due to drug or other convictions,
often no family or community support. So it is not surprising
that as many as two-thirds of the released prisoners are re-
arrested for new crimes within 3 years of their release.
Although the national crime rate has fallen significantly
over the last decade, we are seeing a continuing and
unprecedented increase in our prison and jail population. All
of this focus on increasing sentences has led us to the point
where we now have on a daily basis approximately two and a half
million people locked up in our Nation's jails and prisons, a
fivefold increase over the past 20 years. As a result of this
focus on incarceration, the United States is now the world's
leader in incarceration. The rate per 100,000 population is
approximately 142 in England, 117 in Australia, 116 in Canada,
91 in Germany, and 85 in France. We are by far the largest
incarcerator, with a rate of 726 per 100,000 in 2004. The
closest competitor is Russia, with 532.
Despite all our tough sentences, over 95 percent of inmates
will be released at some point. The question is whether they
will re-enter society in a context that better prepares them
and assists them to lead law-abiding lives or continue the
cycle of two-thirds of them returning in 3 years. So if we are
going to continue to send more and more people to prison with
longer and longer sentences, we should at least do as much as
we reasonably can to assure that when they do return, they
won't go back to prison with new crimes.
Mr. Chairman, I expect that we will see from the testimony
today that we have the experience, the evidence, and experts to
show that we can reduce recidivism through smart re-entry
programming. What's needed are the resources to carry out that
programming. The Second Chance Act, of which you and I are both
cosponsors, is a bipartisan bill supported by a broad coalition
of organizations and individuals, liberals and conservatives,
who recognize the importance of moving forward on this issue.
We also have the LERA bill, the Literacy, Education, and
Rehabilitation Act, which is also designed to reduce
recidivism.
I believe that this hearing provides an important part of
the foundation for our taking this next step toward passing a
well-founded, effective re-entry bill, and I look forward to
the testimony of the witnesses today to help us in this
process.
Mr. Chairman, we can protect the public by reducing the
chance that prisoners will come back and commit new crimes by
passing the legislation that we will be hearing about today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. And we have
also been joined by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio. Mr.
Chabot, good to have you with us today.
For the benefit of the witnesses, it is the practice of the
Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses appearing before it. So
if you all would please stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Coble. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
We have four distinguished witnesses with us today. Our
first witness is Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse, NIDA. Dr. Volkow is the first woman to
serve as NIDA's director since the founding of the institute.
Prior to joining NIDA, Dr. Volkow held concurrent positions at
the Brookhaven National Laboratory as Associate Director for
Life Sciences and Director of Nuclear Medicine. She is a
recognized expert on the brain's dopamine system and was the
first to use imaging to investigate neurochemical changes that
occur during drug addiction.
Dr. Volkow received her B.A. from Modern American School,
an M.D. from the National University of Mexico, and post-
doctoral training in psychiatry at New York University.
I am going to ask Mr. Scott if he will introduce his fellow
Virginian.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our second witness will
be Kenneth Batten, who is the Director of the Office of
Substance Abuse Services at the Virginia Department of Mental
Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Services. He
serves as the Single State Authority for Substance Abuse for
the Commonwealth. He has extensive work experience with
substance abuse populations.
Previously, he worked as the Director of the Division of
Substance Abuse Services and Chief Case Manager at the
Commission of the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program. He is
a member of the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Directors and serves as chair of the Criminal Justice
Committee, and is testifying in that capacity.
He is a graduate of Morris Harvey College and the Virginia
Commonwealth University.
I am pleased to have a fellow Virginian here testifying
with us today.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Scott, Mr. Batten, Doctor.
Our third witness is Ms. Pamela Rodriguez, Executive
Director at the Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities,
TASC. While at TASC, Ms. Rodriguez is responsible for TASC
research, policy, and legislative activities and for the
implementation of a broad array of programs, including
corrections and re-entry strategies, mental and drug health
courts, and testing and counseling. Additionally, Ms. Rodriguez
has performed consultations and training on a State and
national level with regard to systems development in
corrections, criminal justice, child welfare, and treatment
services.
She received her undergraduate degree from Bemidji State
University--where is that, Ms. Rodriguez?
Ms. Rodriguez. Northern Minnesota.
Mr. Coble. Northern Minnesota--an M.A. from the University
of Chicago.
Our final witness today is Ms. Lorna Hogan, Associate
Director of Sacred Authority Program at the Rebecca Project for
Human Rights. Mrs. Hogan is the mother of four children and
celebrates 5 years clean of drugs. She attributes her recovery
and the end of her drug-related criminal activities to a
comprehensive family-based treatment program where she and her
children were allowed to heal together. Ms. Hogan is a recent
graduate of Montgomery College's Continuing Education Program,
and is an active PTA mom.
We look forward to hearing from you, Ms. Hogan, and your
compelling story before our Subcommittee today.
Now, folks, the only thing Mr. Scott and I are inflexible
about is we try to abide by the 5-minute rule. If you all see
the amber light appear on your panel, that is your warning that
the ice on which you are skating is getting thin. You will have
1 minute after that. Now, we're not going to--anybody if you
are not done after 5 minutes, but when the red light appears,
that is your signal that the 5 minutes have expired. We have
read your written testimony, and I am sure that will be re-read
subsequently.
Dr. Volkow, if you will start us off.
TESTIMONY OF DR. NORA VOLKOW, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON
DRUG ABUSE, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Dr. Volkow. Yes, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members
of the Subcommittee. It is a privilege to be here to discuss
NIDA's research on the importance of drug abuse treatment in
the criminal justice system.
Research has consistently shown that drug abuse treatment
in the criminal justice setting and upon re-entry to the
community is cost-effective and markedly reduces recidivism
into both drug abuse and incarceration. Considering that close
to .5 million Americans are incarcerated and that more than
half of these are regular drug users, we have a major
opportunity for improving public health and public safety.
Drug addiction is a disease of the brain that affects the
circuits involved in processing punishment and reward and in
exerting inhibitory control. As a result, the addicted person
will seek drugs compulsively even when they consciously don't
want to and despite the threat of severe punishment, such as
incarceration and loss of child custody, and at the expense of
natural reinforcers, such as family and friends.
Addiction can be treated, and its treatment does not need
to be voluntary to be effective. This is why instituting
treatment in the criminal justice setting constitutes such an
extraordinary public health opportunity.
However, for treatment to be effective, it has to be
comprehensive and address the various elements in the person's
life that has been disrupted by drugs--family, employment,
education, and health. Thus, successful outcomes can be
achieved with criminal offenders who receive treatment in
prisons, provided that a comprehensive aftercare component is
included during the transition back into the community.
For example, in one study, those who participated in
prison-based treatment followed by aftercare were seven times
more likely to be drug-free and two times more likely to be
arrest-free after 3 years than those who received no treatment.
Another unique opportunity is reaching young offenders,
since an appropriate therapeutic intervention can shift their
life trajectories from one of failure to one of success. Age
matters when it comes to drug abuse, since exposure to drugs
during adolescence or childhood may adversely affect brain
development and increase the vulnerability to drugs. A
therapeutic intervention at this stage of life, when the
disease of addiction is still of recent onset, is more likely
to be successful than during adulthood, when it's much more
chronic.
Though we have shown through science that treatment for
drug addiction works, a big challenge is its implementation.
For example, medications have been shown to help normalize
brain function, such as is the case of methadone and
buprenophrine when using the treatment for heroin addiction.
Yet these medications are all but absent in the criminal
justice system.
The translation of science to practice in the criminal
justice setting is complicated by the need to merge two very
different cultures--the public health one that aims to treat,
and the public safety that aims to protect the community. Thus,
a priority for NIDA has been to develop research to help
translate findings from treatment research into the criminal
justice setting.
One such example is the creation of our research networks,
which we call the CJ-DATS, done in collaboration with the
Department of Justice and SAMHSA, that includes researchers
working with treatment providers as well as prisons in several
locations throughout the United States. And this network allows
us to evaluate treatment interventions for drug abuse in
criminal offenders while in prison and upon community re-entry.
Further, because African American males are over eight
times more likely to be incarcerated than white males, research
on the criminal justice consequences of drug abuse in the
African American population is a priority for NIDA.
Treatment of the drug offender during incarceration and re-
entry to the community directly benefits not only the addicted
person, his or her family, but also the community. Returning a
sober parent gives a child the confidence brought by the
protection of the family. Providing medical treatment to the
abuser can reduce transmission of infectious diseases such as
HIV and hepatitis, which are twice as prevalent in this
population. And of course, reducing crime benefits the whole
community.
Treatment of the drug-abusing offender is not only a
necessity for the individual's recovery, but it is also an
urgent public health issue. And because it's cost-effective,
it's a win-win both for public health and for public safety.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Volkow follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nora D. Volkow
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Batten.
TESTIMONY OF KEN BATTEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE
SERVICES, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, MENTAL
RETARDATION & SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES
Mr. Batten. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, and
Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Ken Batten and I serve
as the Single State Authority for Substance Abuse, or SSA, for
the Commonwealth of Virginia. Today I appear before you as a
representative of the National Association of State Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Directors, where I serve as chair of the Criminal
Justice Committee.
Thank you for holding this hearing today. I sincerely
appreciate the focus this Subcommittee has placed on substance
abuse treatment as a key part in offender re-entry programs. As
the SSA in Virginia, I manage the publicly funded substance
abuse system. I work closely with my counterparts in Virginia
and the criminal justice system on treatment and other re-entry
issues.
As you know, re-entering offenders face many challenges.
There is no doubt that a comprehensive approach is necessary to
address the needs of those returning to our communities.
Substance abuse treatment must take a prominent role when
dealing with issues of re-entry. It is estimated that 70 to 80
percent of the State prisoners have histories of substance
abuse; however, as few as 10 percent are receiving formal
substance abuse treatment while incarcerated. Their resources
for treatment are limited. Research shows us that people can
and do recover from addiction and that treatment works.
Our experience with prison and jail-based substance use
disorder programs in Virginia also demonstrate the efficacy of
these programs in reducing recidivism. A survey of Virginia
sheriffs, providers of substance abuse services, and jail
services staff has indicated that the establishment of these
counseling services by our agency had a significant impact on
the behavior of individuals with substance abuse problems in
Virginia's jails.
For this hearing I would like to offer the five core
recommendations as you consider action on offender re-entry.
Recommendation 1: Coordinate with the Single State
Authorities on re-entry strategies. As previously stated, a
comprehensive approach must be taken when building a re-entry
strategy. Creating a State-level coordinating committee of all
necessary agencies and departments helps to identify
overlapping services and populations and increase communication
among agencies. It is imperative that State substance abuse
directors are included in the planning, implementing, and
evaluating of any re-entry strategy. The Single State
Authorities have the front-line responsibility for managing our
Nation's publicly funded substance abuse prevention and
treatment system and creating statewide systems of care. Our
own experience in Virginia has demonstrated that when these
systems coordinate their efforts, less duplication of effort
occurs, the overall product improves, and better services are
delivered.
Recommendation 2: Expand access to treatment. It has been
shown that in order to capitalize on jail and prison substance
use disorder programs, it is critical to engage offenders in
continuing care upon release; the majority of offenders who
seek aftercare services, however, will face a publicly funded
system already at capacity. To accommodate the number of people
in need, policies that ensure access to and resources for
treatment services are necessary in order for State systems to
be able to absorb additional admissions. One example is a
strong commitment to the Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Block Grant, which directs funding to every State and
territory. Other support comes from the Department of Justice
through programs such as Drug Courts, the Byrne/Justice
Assistance Grants, and the Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment Program.
Recommendation Number 3: Ensure clinically appropriate
care. The research findings of the National Institute of Drug
Abuse classifies substance abuse as a brain disease,
recognizing that effective drug and alcohol treatment should
contain both medical and behavioral therapy components in
addition to a broad array of social support services. SSAs are
responsible for developing and enforcing treatment standards
based upon research and practical experience unique to their
State's organizational structure and the individual's treatment
needs. State licensure and certification laws help protect the
consumer from receiving inappropriate or substandard care.
Recommendation Number 4: Build accountability and outcomes
data. Coordination with the State substance abuse agencies also
improves accountability. Currently, many Federal grants to
address substance abuse treatment do not require a link to the
State agencies for purposes of reporting client-level data to a
central repository. It is important for common standards, like
those developed within the national outcome measures, be used
when collecting data in order for findings and outcomes to be
complete. Collecting accurate data and sharing information can
help improve collaboration, document treatment effectiveness,
and maintain a continuous quality improvement approach to
managing public resources. It is also essential to use the data
collected and conduct additional research on the impact
addiction services have on offender re-entry. NASADAD strongly
supports the work of the National Institute on Drug Abuse led
by Dr. Volkow and encourages collaboration with the National
Institute of Justice and Justice Statistics.
Our final recommendation, Number 5: Support efforts like
the Second Chance Act. NASADAD strongly supports the Second
Chance Act. This legislation lays the foundation of the
comprehensive approach I mentioned before that is necessary to
address offender re-entry. As you examine further actions
regarding re-entry, NASADAD hopes you move forward on this
legislation and offers our support on this important issue.
Once again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for
inviting me here today to testify on the State substance abuse
programs and their role in offender re-entry. I appreciate the
opportunity to share with you my experiences and would be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Batten follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Batten
introduction
Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the Subcommittee,
my name is Ken Batten, and I serve as the Single State Authority for
Substance Abuse (SSA) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am also a
member of the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Directors (NASADAD), where I serve as Chair of the Criminal Justice
Committee.
Thank you for holding this hearing today regarding offender reentry
and substance abuse treatment and its impact on American families and
communities. I sincerely appreciate the focus this Subcommittee has
placed on substance abuse treatment as a key part in offender reentry
programs. As you examine further actions regarding reentry, we offer
our support and commitment and look forward to working with you and
others on this important issue.
core recommendations
There is no doubt that a comprehensive approach is necessary to
address the needs of those leaving our jails and prisons and returning
to our communities. Entities beyond corrections, including schools,
child welfare representatives, businesses, and others must work
together to address all the needs of reentering offenders.
As the Single State Authority for Substance Abuse (SSA) in
Virginia, I manage the publicly funded State substance abuse system. I
work closely with my counterpart in the Virginia criminal justice
system on treatment and other reentry issues. I appreciate the
opportunity to share with you my experiences.
For this hearing, I would like to offer the following core
recommendations as you consider action on offender reentry:
Coordinate with the Single State Authorities for
Substance Abuse (SSAs)
Expand Access to Treatment Services
Ensure Clinically Appropriate Care
Promote Accountability and Outcomes Data
Support Efforts Like the Second Chance Act
overview--scope of the problem
Each year nearly 650,000 people are leaving State and federal
prisons, many unprepared for their return to society. Reentering
offenders face many challenges including substance abuse disorders and
other health problems, poor education and job skills and a lack of
affordable housing. As a result, nearly two-thirds of released
prisoners will be rearrested within three years.
The need for comprehensive reentry programs is clear. Successful
programs, which include a strong addiction treatment component--
increase public safety, save money and improve the lives of the
offenders and all in the community.
Substance Abuse is a Distinct, Prominent Problem
It is estimated that 70 to 80 percent of State prisoners have
histories of substance use, however, as few as 10 percent are receiving
formal substance abuse treatment while incarcerated. Though resources
for treatment are limited, research shows us that people can and do
recover from addiction and treatment works.
Treatment Reduces Recidivism and Saves Money
Inmates who participate in residential treatment programs while
incarcerated have approximately 20 percent lower recidivism rates and
35 percent lower drug relapse rates than their counterparts who receive
no treatment in prison (G. Gaes et al, 1999). One study showed that
those who completed an in-prison therapeutic community treatment
program coupled with aftercare services were significantly less likely
to be re-incarcerated: 25 percent of this population was re-
incarcerated compared to 64 percent of aftercare dropouts (K. Knight et
al, Prison Journal, 1988).
Our experience with prison and jail based substance use disorder
programs in Virginia also demonstrates the efficacy of these programs
in reducing recidivism. Further, a 1992 Virginia survey of Sheriffs,
providers of substance use disorder services and jail services staff
indicated that establishment of these counseling services by our agency
had a significant impact on the behavior of individuals with substance
abuse problems in the jails. Sheriffs reported a 21precent decrease in
the number of jail assaults; a 51 percent decrease in the incidence of
negative behavior in jails; an improvement of the jail environment; and
a 21 percent decrease in the number of suicide attempts in jails.
In addition, treatment saves money. According to the Council of
State Governments' (CSG) Reentry Policy Report, for every $1 spent on
treatment for offenders, there is up to a $7 crime-related cost
savings. Similarly, a study in California found that in spending $209
million on offender treatment, the taxpayers were saved $1.5 billion 18
months later, with the largest savings in crime reduction (D. Gerstein
et al, State of CA, 1994).
recommendation: coordinate with ssas on reentry strategies
As previously stated, a comprehensive approach must be taken when
building a reentry strategy. Creating a State-level coordinating
committee of all necessary agencies and departments helps to identify
overlapping services and populations and increase communications among
agencies. Given the high rate of substance use among offenders and the
positive effect of treatment on reducing recidivism rates and saving
taxpayer dollars, it is imperative that State substance abuse directors
are involved in the planning, implementing, reporting and evaluating of
any reentry strategy.
State substance abuse directors have the frontline responsibility
for managing our nation's publicly funded substance abuse prevention
and treatment system. SSAs have a long history of providing effective
and efficient services with the federal Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant housed in the Department of Health and
Human Services, serving as the foundation of these efforts. SSAs
provide leadership to improve the quality of care; improve client
outcomes; increase accountability and nurture new and exciting
innovations.
SSAs implement and evaluate a State-wide comprehensive system of
clinically appropriate care. They are responsible for setting clinical
treatment standards for all addiction treatment services in the States.
Every day, SSAs must work with a number of public and private
stakeholders given the fact that addiction impacts everything from
criminal justice, education, housing, employment and a number of other
areas. Lack of coordination with State substance abuse agencies has
been a consistent problem with discretionary grants--with the CSG
Reentry Policy Report noting that ``. . . programs often turn to state
agencies for resources when their federal grants expire without giving
the state adequate time to plan for the support of such requests.''
With a system already facing capacity concerns, should grant
programs expire or demand exceed expectation, State substance abuse
directors cannot prepare for such situations without direct
involvement. As a result, initiatives regarding reentry should closely
interact and coordinate with SSAs given their unique role in planning,
implementing and evaluating State addiction systems. Our own experience
in Virginia has demonstrated that when these systems coordinate their
efforts less duplication of effort occurs, the overall product improves
and better services are delivered.
recommendation: expand access to treatment
It has been shown that the most successful outcomes are found for
those who received treatment while incarcerated followed up with
aftercare services post release. Coordination with SSAs can help
provide a seamless transition by ensuring clinically appropriate care
while incarcerated and timely access to care once released.
It must be recognized that the majority of offenders who seek
aftercare services will enter the publicly-funded system already at
capacity leading to waiting lists for services in many areas. In order
to capitalize on jail and prison substance use disorder programs
however, it is critical to engage offenders in continuing care upon
release. Compounding this problem, the National Survey on Drug Use and
Health (NSDUH) found that over 20 million Americans needed, but did not
receive substance abuse treatment due, in part, to strains on capacity
in the publicly funded system. Already, according to the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the criminal
justice system represents the principle source of referral for 36
percent of all substance abuse treatment admissions. To accommodate the
number of people in need, every effort must be made to expand
prevention and treatment capacity.
Policies that increase access to and resources for treatment
services are necessary in order for State systems to be able to absorb
additional admissions. One example is a strong commitment to the SAPT
Block Grant--funding directed to every State and Territory that
represents approximately 40 percent of prevention and treatment
expenditures for SSAs. Other support comes out of Department of Justice
(DOJ) through programs such as Drug Courts, Byrne/Justice Assistance
Grants and the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program.
Strengthen Prevention Services and Infrastructure
It is also important to remember that infrastructure is needed to
provide the capacity and resources for developing efficient and
effective programs to prevent and reduce drug related crimes. SAMHSA's
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) has been partnering with
SSAs to develop this fundamental infrastructure in a number of States
through the State Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPFSIG).
Other partners in the federal prevention portfolio include the
Department of Education's Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
(SDFSC) State Grants program and Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws
(EUDL) housed in the Department of Justice (DOJ).
recommendation: ensure clinically appropriate care
The research findings of the National Institute of Drug Abuse
(NIDA) classifies substance abuse as a brain disease. Research
recognizes that effective drug and alcohol treatment should contain
both medical and behavioral therapy components--in addition to a broad
array of social support services.
State substance abuse agencies are responsible for developing and
enforcing treatment standards for providers. Each State has a unique
set of provider standards based on research and practical experience
unique to that State's organizational structure and treatment needs.
State licensure and certification laws help protect consumers from
receiving inappropriate or substandard care.
Studies have shown that clinically appropriate services, including
screening, assessment, referral, individualized treatment plans within
the appropriate level of care and for the indicated duration of
treatment, along with aftercare and other supports, provided by
qualified staff help people enter into recovery.
Support the Development of Addiction Workforce
A key challenge for many States in enhancing the quantity and
quality of treatment services is recruiting, training, and retaining
qualified treatment professionals. Effective addiction counseling is a
skill that must be learned and developed. Salaries for counselors
average about $30,000 per year, which is low for such skilled and
emotionally challenging work.
There is a shortage of trained counselors and that shortage is
likely to grow. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a
total of 61,000 individuals were employed as substance abuse and
behavioral disorders counselors in 2000; by 2010, the Department of
Labor (DOL) projects there will be a need for an additional 21,000
counselors, a 35 percent increase. A similar increase in demand is
anticipated for licensed professionals who have received graduate-level
educations.
To reverse this trend, initiatives to increase related scholarships
and offer student loan repayment must be considered on a State and
federal level.
In addition, SAMHSA has funded fourteen Addiction Technology
Transfer Centers (ATTCs) that provide training to people working in the
field across the nation. The ATTCs are currently involved in a major
leadership development initiative. In Virginia, we rely heavily on the
Mid-Atlantic ATTC to provide intensive training to prepare entry-level
counselors for certification, and to organize our annual week long
summer institute staffed by national experts and attended by over 700
addiction professionals.
recommendation: build accountability and outcomes
Coordination with the State substance abuse agencies also improves
accountability. Currently, many federal grants to address substance
abuse treatment do not require a link to the State Agencies for the
purpose of reporting client level data to a central repository. It is
important for common standards and outcome measurements be used when
collecting data in order for findings and outcomes to be accurate and
complete. Collecting accurate data and sharing information can help
improve collaboration and fine-tune services to better address
populations.
Continue technical assistance and support for reporting the National
Outcomes Measures (NOMs)
Over the past several years my staff in Virginia has collaborated
with staff from SAMHSA and NASADAD to develop outcomes measures to
document treatment effectiveness. This process culminated last year
with the development of the National Outcomes Measures (NOMs). SAMHSA
and the States are working to have all States report NOMs by the end of
FY 2007. As we began this process, approximately one-third of the
States could initially report NOMs, another one-third could do so with
some resources and the remaining States requiring added resources and
time. Virginia was recently awarded a contract to begin reporting NOMs
under the State Outcomes Measurement and Management System (SOMMS).
In addition to the NOMs, VaDMHMRSAS has been working to link our
client data to data on arrests and employment history at the Virginia
State Police and the Virginia Employment Commission. These processes,
while maintaining compliance with federal regulations regarding client
confidentiality, present exciting opportunities to document treatment
effectiveness and maintain a continuous quality improvement approach to
managing public resources. Documenting outcomes at the State level will
continue to require significant resources to refine state data systems.
To maintain recent progress in this area, support for SOMMS and for the
Drug Abuse State Information Systems (DASIS) is critical.
Continue to Support Research
It is essential to use the data collected and conduct additional
research on the impact addiction services have on offender reentry.
SSAs strongly urge the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to collaborate with the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism (NIAAA), and States as they continue studies regarding
prisoner reentry efforts. NASADAD applauds NIDA, lead by Dr. Nora
Volkov, for working with SSAs and NASADAD to translate research into
everyday practice.
recommendation: support efforts like the second chance act
NASADAD strongly supports the Second Chance Act. This legislation
works to increase the availability of treatment and aftercare services
by expanding current grant programs and encouraging collaboration among
State and federal agencies--including SSAs. The Second Chance Act lays
the foundation of the comprehensive approach I mentioned before that is
necessary to address offender reentry. It will help establish State
level committees to develop well coordinated reentry plans. It also
pulls together federal agencies to organize initiatives at the national
level as well as a national reentry resource center to disseminate
technical assistance and best practices. This will greatly help States
and communities share information and knowledge on what works.
conclusion
Once again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for inviting me
here today to testify on State substance abuse systems and their role
in offender reentry. I would be happy to answer any questions.
ATTACHMENT
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Batten.
Ms. Rodriguez.
TESTIMONY OF PAMELA RODRIGUEZ, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR SAFE COMMUNITIES (TASC), INC.
Ms. Rodriguez. Good afternoon. I would like to thank
Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, and the Subcommittee for
inviting me to testify today. I am the Executive Vice President
of TASC, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities. TASC is a
statewide not-for-profit organization in Illinois that provides
access to recovery and other specialized services for
individuals involved in the State's public systems, including
criminal justice, corrections, juvenile justice, child welfare,
and public aid.
With a total correctional population in the United States
at a record high 6.7 million, the problems associated with
offender re-entry have not gone unnoticed. People on probation
and parole face a host of seemingly insurmountable challenges
in attempting to achieve stability and successfully reintegrate
back into society. It is in the public's best interest to work
toward addressing and removing these barriers. Doing so will
reduce the costly cycle of crime and recidivism in which so
many individuals and communities are entrenched.
While the barriers to successful re-entry are daunting and
numerous, there are programs and organizations that achieve
positive outcomes in this area. By systemically using evidence-
based practices and programs to build on existing
infrastructures, the extensive growing problems associated with
criminal justice populations can be addressed. People's lives
will be changed for the better--not only those who are
incarcerated, their families and their communities, but also
the American public that expects its taxes to be spent
effectively and wants to live without the threat of crime.
TASC programs across the country assist in the achievement
of recovery, rehabilitation, and successful re-entry for
thousands of people each year. While I'm here representing TASC
in Illinois, I would be remiss to neglect mentioning other
significant TASC programs that share our goal of improving
outcomes for substance abusing offenders and reducing
recidivism--like those in Ohio, North Carolina, Alabama,
Arizona, Delaware, and New York.
In Illinois, our statewide presence and impact on thousands
of offenders each year exemplifies the real possibility of
systemic change on a national level. We reach over 30,000
people in our State annually, 4,000 of whom receive
transitional clinical case management through our corrections
programs. Another 10,000 probationers are served by TASC
through alternative sentencing programs. TASC works with an
array of service providers and community partners, including
treatment recovery support, non-traditional providers, former
offenders, and faith-based organizations throughout the State.
Funded by Federal, State, and county governments, an
important element of Illinois' offender management
infrastructure is the incorporation of an independent case
management entity. Research conducted by Thomas McClellan at
the Treatment Research Institute in Philadelphia concluded that
case management is an effective tool to use in increasing the
appropriateness of and adherence to quality alcohol or drug
treatment in public systems.
As Illinois' designated agent to provide case management
services to people needing substance abuse treatment or
interventions, referred through the court or corrections, TASC
utilizes a clinical approach to create a service delivery plan
tailored to the unique needs of each individual and is also
responsive to the need for offender accountability, public
safety, and efficient use of public resources.
And yet, demand for services far exceeds our capacity. The
Second Chance Act addresses these issues. TASC is in full
support of the Second Chance Act, which will address the
current system of barriers to successful integration. This
vital legislation will help restore citizenship, promote
accountability and responsibility for self that is fundamental
to recovery from addiction, encourage family strength and
stability, and engage communities in the rehabilitation of
their own citizens. For many years, TASC has had the honor of
working with Illinois Congressman Danny Davis on these
important issues.
The Second Chance Act will provide critical support
services that enable ex-offenders to successfully transition
back into their communities and stay out of prison and jail by
expanding substance abuse and mental health interventions and
treatment, job assistance, and housing. It is our hope that
this act will build on existing infrastructures, expanding on
programs, services, and treatments proven to work. This
legislation will promote public safety and save taxpayer
dollars by breaking the costly cycle of recidivism that causes
individuals, especially those with drug and alcohol issues, to
repeatedly offend and serve time in our Nation's prisons and
jails. Research shows that $7 in savings is recognized for
every dollar invested in treatment. Additionally, research
indicates that there's a 40 percent reduction in the costs of
incarceration when offenders are served in community-based
alternative sentencing programs.
We know that the problems of alcohol and other drug abuse
and mental illness are thoroughly intertwined with crime,
incarceration, and recidivism. We also know that assessment,
intensive clinical case management, intervention and treatment
work to reduce drug and alcohol addiction and treat mental
health conditions for those involved in the criminal justice
system, routinely showing a 50 percent reduction in recidivism
when treated. It makes sense to expand the provision of these
vital services in prisons and jails and aftercare.
With the Second Chance Act , we have the opportunity to
create maximum impact by developing a thoughtful systemic
response that expands substance abuse and mental health
treatment, safe and supportive housing, education, employment
training, family and community assistance. This legislation
begins a process for ensuring better coordination and planning
and builds on existing infrastructure, leveraging both
resources and proven programs. Finally, with this legislation
we can begin to remove the barriers that prevent a
rehabilitated person from achieving full recovery and
citizenship. Without a system response, today's solutions will
be tomorrow's problems.
Thank you, Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rodriguez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pamela Rodriguez
tasc in illinois
I would like to thank Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott and the
Subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. I am the Executive Vice
President of TASC (Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities), which
is a statewide not-for-profit organization that provides access to
recovery and other specialized services for individuals involved in
Illinois' criminal justice, corrections, juvenile justice, child
welfare and public aid systems. TASC's programs reach over 30,000
people across Illinois each year, including our Corrections
Transitional Programs, which provide clinical case management to more
than 4,000 adults annually who are reentering the community following
incarceration. TASC works with an array of service providers and
community partners, including treatment, recovery support, non-
traditional providers and faith-based organizations throughout the
state.
TASC is challenged every day with helping our clients overcome
obstacles that prevent them from accessing the critical services and
resources they need to become productive citizens following
incarceration. Most of our clients are ill-equipped for lives of
stability, health and self-sufficiency. Many have substance use or
mental health issues that were in existence before their incarceration.
Many need legitimate employment, stable housing and community support
to have any hope of a crime-free lifestyle. For most of our clients,
successful reintegration requires the careful and deliberate navigation
of an array of programs, public systems, communities and the demands
and expectations placed on returning offenders.
To address the many barriers faced by our clients, TASC helps
parolees complete their justice requirements and successfully
reintegrate into their communities. Our programs work to develop
collaborative, systems-level responses that balance the supervisory,
health, welfare and justice needs of the ex-offender, his or her family
and community. By acting as an independent entity, TASC utilizes a
clinical case management approach to integrate all of these
requirements into a service delivery plan tailored to the unique needs
of each individual and is also responsive to the need for
accountability, public safety and efficient use of public resources.
A primary goal for TASC's case management model is ``restoring
citizenship.'' This entails supporting and guiding former offenders as
they learn positive ways of thinking, living and being. TASC transforms
lives formerly characterized by involvement with drugs and the criminal
justice system by working with individuals to learn the meaning and
rewards of genuine self-care and respect for others. TASC clients
develop the skills, attitudes and behaviors that are consistent with
positive citizenship, including assuming responsibility for self-
direction and making positive contributions to their families,
workplaces and communities. In the process of restoring citizenship,
there is a healing of past harms and reassurance to victims, families
and communities that change is possible. To accomplish these goals,
TASC also works closely with community members and organizations to
help them build their own capacity to support and reintegrate ex-
offenders.
the second chance act
TASC is in full support of The Second Chance Act, which will
address the current system of barriers to successful reintegration that
are faced by men and women following incarceration. This vital
legislation will help restore citizenship, promote the accountability
and responsibility for self that is fundamental to recovery from
addiction, encourage family strength and stability and engage
communities in the rehabilitation of their own citizens. TASC has had
the honor of working with Illinois Congressman Danny K. Davis on these
important issues for many years. As a Co-sponsor of this bill,
Congressman Davis continues to enhance his lengthy and impressive track
record of exceptional dedication and leadership in the areas of reentry
and public safety.
The Second Chance Act will provide critical support services that
enable ex-offenders to successfully transition back into their
communities and stay out of prison and jail, such as substance abuse
and mental health interventions and treatment, job assistance and
housing. This legislation will promote public safety and save taxpayers
dollars by breaking the costly cycle of recidivism that causes
individuals, especially those with drug and alcohol issues, to
repeatedly offend and serve time in our nation's and state's penal
systems.
We know that the problems of alcohol and other drug abuse and
mental illness are thoroughly intertwined with crime, incarceration and
recidivism. We also know that assessment, intensive clinical case
management, intervention and treatment work to reduce drug and alcohol
addiction and treat mental health conditions for those involved in the
criminal justice system. Therefore, it makes sense to expand the
provision of these vital services in prisons and jails and in aftercare
programming if we want to prevent re-offense and re-incarceration.
Assessment and case management are essential to bridge the system and
community providers, ensuring that individuals are linked with
appropriate treatment and meet the requirements of courts and parole.
This legislation takes important steps toward expanding these services
in our nation's prisons and jails.
We also know that ex-offenders who cannot secure stable housing or
steady employment, and whose families have suffered the strain of
separation, have a much harder time staying out of prison and jail.
This legislation will continue to fund state and local government
programs that provide housing, education, job training and family
initiatives, all of which contributes toward answering the immediate
and pressing needs of returning individuals and their families.
As stakeholders with a vested interest in public safety and the
health and well-being of all of its citizens, community providers are
in a unique position to affect the successful reentry of its
incarcerated population as individuals return from prison and jail. The
Second Chance Act engages community non-profits, including faith-based
providers, in serving and empowering their own populations in
successful reentry through programs such as President Bush's Mentoring
Prisoners grant program, which provides funding for adult offender
mentoring and reintegration transitional services. I would like to
acknowledge President Bush's vision in the area of reentry and thank
him for his leadership in bringing attention to this important issue.
This legislation begins the process for ensuring better
coordination and planning for release by providing necessary
interventions and treatment for alcohol and drug addiction, treatment
for mental health disorders, recovery support services, job training,
education, housing services and family assistance in preparation for
and upon release. TASC strongly urges Congress to support this
legislation to improve the health, justice, welfare and safety of all
of our residents and communities.
Thank you, Chairman Coble and members of the Subcommittee, for
hearing my testimony before you today. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez.
Mrs. Hogan.
TESTIMONY OF LORNA HOGAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF SACRED
AUTHORITY, PARENT ADVOCATE, THE REBECCA PROJECT FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Hogan. Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. It is
a privilege to be here today.
My name is Lorna Hogan and I'm the mother of four children.
At the age of 14, I began abusing marijuana and alcohol as a
way of coping with being physically, mentally, and verbally
abused. I was afraid to tell anyone what was going on, and
self-medicating was the only way I knew that could ease the
pain. After awhile, the combination was not working. I needed
something stronger to help me cope with the abuse. I began
using crack cocaine. Crack cocaine would take me to horrible
places I never imagined I would even go. The once-clean police
record I had became stained with drug-related charges I
committed to support my habit.
My children were definitely affected by my drug use. I
wasn't a mother to them. My grandmother was raising them, and
when she became ill, I began leaving them with other people. I
couldn't stop using. I tried 28-day treatment programs, but I
was just detoxing. I was not getting help for the emotional
pain I kept suppressed by using drugs. There were no services
provided for me as a mother, there were no services for my
children. There were no opportunities to heal as a family.
In December of 2000, I was arrested on a drug-related
charge and my children were placed with Child Protective
Services. When I went before the judge for sentencing, I begged
him for treatment. The judge refused my request. I felt
hopeless. I not only lost my children, I lost myself. I didn't
know where my children were or what was happening to them. I
felt I would never see them again.
In jail I received no treatment. I was surrounded by women
like myself. We were all mothers. We were all there in jail
suffering from untreated addiction. But there were no treatment
services in jail for us. When I was released, there were no
referrals to aftercare treatment programs. I was released to
the street at 10 o'clock at night, with $4 in my pocket, and I
still didn't know where my children were. I went back to doing
the only thing I knew, which was using drugs. I felt myself
sinking back into a life of self-degradation.
Months later, by the grace of God, I finally found someone
to listen to me, a child welfare worker who was assigned to my
case. She referred me to an 18-month family treatment program.
A family treatment program is where a mother can go with her
children and the whole family as a unit can receive services.
At family treatment, I addressed the underlying issues of why I
used. I identified the many ways that I self-medicated my pain.
I had a therapist to help me address the guilt and shame of
being a mother who used drugs. I had a primary counselor I
could talk to at any time.
I also had parenting classes that gave me insight on being
a mother. When my children were returned to me during
treatment, my children received therapeutic services so that
they, too, could heal from the pain of my addiction.
Today I am a graduate of the family treatment program. I
acknowledge 5 years clean time from drugs and alcohol. My case
with Child Protective Services is closed. My children and I
have been reunified for 4 years. We live in our own home in
Montgomery County. My children are succeeding academically in
school. I am a PTA mom. We are a whole and strong and loving
family today.
I would like to conclude my story by sharing with you how
critical it is for mothers like me to receive access to family-
based treatment. When moms enter into family treatment
programs, we have a 60 percent success rate. We stay clean. We
don't re-enter the criminal justice system. And we stabilize
our families.
Most mothers behind bars are non-violent drug felons, and
they are untreated addicts. They receive little or no
opportunity to heal from their addiction. The absence of
treatment services for mothers is apparent at every point in
their involvement with the criminal justice system. Pretrial
diversion, release services, court sentence alternatives, and
re-entry programs for women offenders are restricted in number,
size, and effectiveness. Mothers behind bars and mothers re-
entering the community need treatment. We need comprehensive
family treatment to break the cycle of addiction in our
families and to close the revolving door of the criminal
justice system. We need comprehensive family treatment so that
we can stabilize our families and raise our children with
health and dignity.
If moms behind bars are sentenced to family treatment
programs, and if family treatment is made available to mothers
returning to the community, so many families will have a real
chance to heal and to stabilize. And like my family, they will
have the chance to truly recover and not be lost to the
criminal justice system.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hogan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lorna Hogan
Good afternoon Members of the Committee, it is a privilege to be
here today. My name is Lorna Hogan and I am the mother of four
children. At the age of fourteen, I began abusing marijuana and alcohol
as a way of coping with being physically, mentally, and verbally
abused. I was afraid to tell anyone what was going on and self-
medicating was the only way I knew that could ease the pain. After
awhile, this combination was not working. I needed something stronger
to help me cope with the abuse. I began using crack cocaine.
Crack cocaine would take me to horrible places I never imagined I
would even go. The once clean police record I had became stained with
drug related crimes I committed to support my habit. My children were
definitely affected by my drug use. I wasn't a mother to them. My
grandmother was raising them and when she became ill, I began leaving
them with other people.
I couldn't stop using. I tried 28 day treatment programs but I was
just detoxing. I was not getting help for the emotional pain I kept
suppressed by using drugs. There were no services provided for me as a
mother. There were no services for my children. There were no
opportunities to heal as a family.
In December, 2000, I was arrested on a drug related charge and my
children were placed with Child Protective Services. When I went before
the judge for sentencing, I begged him for treatment. The judge refused
my request. I felt hopeless. I not only lost my children, I lost
myself. I didn't know where my children were or what was happening to
them. I felt I would never see them again.
In jail, I received no treatment. I was surrounded by women like
myself--e were all mothers. We were all there, in jail, suffering from
untreated addiction, but there were no treatment services in jail for
us.
When I was released there were no referrals to aftercare treatment
programs. I was released to the street at ten o'clock at night with
four dollars in my pocket. I still didn't know where my children were.
I went back to doing the only thing I knew, which was using drugs. I
felt myself sinking back into a life of self-degradation.
Months later, by the grace of God, I finally found someone to
listen to me: a child welfare worker who was assigned to my case. She
referred me to an 18 month family treatment program. A family treatment
program is where a mother can go with her children and the family as a
whole unit receives help together. In family treatment, I addressed the
underlying reasons for my addiction. I identified the many ways that I
self-medicated to my pain. I had a therapist to help me address the
guilt and shame of being a mother who used drugs. I had a primary
counselor I could talk to at any time. I also had parenting classes
that gave me insight into being a mother. When my children were
returned to me during treatment, my children received therapeutic
services so that they too could heal from the pain of my addiction.
Today I am a graduate of the family treatment program. I
acknowledge five years clean time from drugs and alcohol. My case with
child protective services is closed. My children and I have been
reunified for four years. We live in our own home in Montgomery County.
My children are succeeding academically in school. I am a PTA mom. We
are a whole and strong and loving family today.
I would like to conclude my story by sharing with you how critical
it is for mothers like me to receive access to family based treatment.
When moms enter into family treatment programs we have a 60% success
rate. We stay clean, we don't reenter the criminal justice system, and
we stabilize our families.
Most mothers behind bars are non-violent drug felons and they are
untreated addicts. They receive little or no opportunity to heal from
their addiction. The absence of treatment services for mothers is
apparent at every point in their involvement with the criminal justice
system. Pre-trial diversion, release services, court-sentenced
alternatives and re-entry programs for women offenders are restricted
in number, size, and effectiveness.
Mothers behind bars and mothers reentering the community need
treatment. We need comprehensive family treatment to break the cycle of
addiction in our families and to close the revolving door of the
criminal justice system. We need comprehensive family treatment so that
we can stabilize our families and raise our children with health and
dignity.
If moms behind bars are sentenced to family treatment programs, and
if family treatment is made available to mothers returning to the
community, so many families will have a real chance to heal and to
stabilize. Like my family, they will have the chance to truly recover
and not be lost to the criminal justice system.
Thank you
ATTACHMENT
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Ms. Hogan, and thanks to all of you.
Now, for the benefit of the witnesses, we impose the 5-
minute rule against us as well. So if you could keep your
questions as terse as possible.
Dr. Volkow, what are the implications for the criminal
justice system based on NIDA's research showing that drug
addiction disrupts the brain circuits in processing of reward
and punishment factors.
Dr. Volkow. The circuits involved in punishment and reward
are circuits that are in our brain in order to motivate
behaviors that are indispensable for survival, such as finding
food, finding a partner, taking care of children. And drugs
activate exactly the same circuits, but in much more efficient
ways. When a person becomes addicted, those circuits basically
signal to the brain the equivalent of a signal ``you need to do
the drug in order to survive.'' So the person that is addicted
in that process seeks the drug not out of pleasure, but out of
need.
Mr. Coble. And knowing, I guess, that punishment may be
forthcoming.
Dr. Volkow. Knowing that punishment may be forthcoming, but
the value of punishment, when the signal is one of survival,
becomes pale in comparison. So the person seeks the drug
regardless of the catastrophic consequences. And that, I think,
is a message extraordinarily important for the criminal justice
system, because one of the things that is very frustrating in
speaking with judges is how come we cannot affect the behavior
by punishment? Well, the brain is not responding the same way
that it would had that person not been affected by the drugs.
Mr. Coble. I got you. Thank you.
Ms. Hogan, for my information and the information of the
Subcommittee, when you were confined and there was no treatment
available, was that in a State-operated institution or county,
or Federal?
Ms. Hogan. It was a county.
Mr. Coble. A county jail?
Ms. Hogan. A county jail.
Mr. Coble. And when you asked for treatment, you said the
judge just turned a deaf ear to you?
Ms. Hogan. He just basically told me he heard it before and
the same people keep coming before him over and over again.
Mr. Coble. Well, your story, Ms. Hogan, is an inspiration,
I think, for all of us and reminds us of the real benefits that
a comprehensive re-entry program can have, as each of you has
explained.
Now, answer this for me, Ms. Hogan.
Ms. Hogan. Yes?
Mr. Coble. How important do you see family-based therapies
for drug addiction?
Ms. Hogan. It's very important, because there are so many
underlying issues of why a person used in the first place. And
with comprehensive family treatment, not only is that parent
getting the help, the children also need therapy.
Mr. Coble. I guess it is what did it for you?
Ms. Hogan. Yes, it did. Yes, it did.
Mr. Coble. And you came out very well. I commend you for
that.
Ms. Hogan. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Batten, when authorizing new Federal drug
treatment and re-entry programs, why is it so important to
coordinate--Well, strike that.
Is it important--I think it is--to coordinate with a Single
State Authority for Substance Abuse? Do you concur with that?
Mr. Batten. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do concur with that. In
Virginia we have over the years coordinated with our
counterparts in the criminal justice system on a number of
occasions. When we don't coordinate well, we end up duplicating
each other's efforts, or actions that we should be taking get
lost. When we coordinate, we sit down at the table, we discuss
how to ensure that people receive continuing care upon release,
how to begin developing services inside the prisons and the
jails, and ensuring that continuing care takes place upon
release. While we would like to do more, we are limited in
terms of the resources that we have available.
Mr. Coble. I see.
I think I have time for one more question. Ms. Rodriguez,
what role does TASC play in providing integrated services to an
offender, A, and what types of services are included?
Ms. Rodriguez. TASC serves an independent case management
function advocating for the individual, bridging the criminal
justice system with community treatment. And the community
treatment involves substance abuse treatment, mental health
treatment, housing, employment, all of the kinds of supportive
services we're talking about in second chances.
Mr. Coble. I thank you. And I see my light's about to come
on.
Mr. Scott from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Volkow, when you talk about comprehensive services,
what are you talking about?
Dr. Volkow. What I meant by that is that, first, you have
to evaluate the unique needs of that substance abuser. Because
if you don't, what's going to happen is exactly like it was
described here: you are sending a prisoner that abuses
substances out on the street with no resources. So you have to
evaluate that the family structure is properly taken care of,
that the individual is evaluated for the presence of mental
disorders. Comorbidity in the substance abusers in the criminal
justice system is more the rule than the exception. If you
don't treat depression in a substance abuser, the likelihood of
succeeding in keeping that person out of drugs and
reincarceration is very, very low.
You have to address issues of medical health.
Unfortunately, the rate of infection of substance abusers and
individuals that are in the criminal justice system is
significantly higher than that of other individuals. As a
result of that, it becomes urgent, it becomes a need to not
only evaluate but to educate that person about proper
behaviors.
And finally, you need to provide a mechanism by which that
person can succeed--if it's an adult, through their job; if
it's a young person, through education; and if it's a mother,
through providing them the skills to properly train their
children.
That's what I mean by ``comprehensive.'' You cannot just
look at one aspect and forget the rest. You will fail.
Mr. Scott. Is there any question that comprehensive
services will actually reduce drug use?
Dr. Volkow. There is consistently data showing that
comprehensive services reduce the rate of substance abuse. And
in fact, to me, one of the real success stories in the criminal
justice system is the drug courts. It is very visionary. And
the basis of the drug courts is that sense that you need to
address the multiple aspects of an individual's life that have
been disrupted by drug abuse. And the reason why they have been
so successful in so many instances is that they have been able
to do that very properly.
So, yes, if you just aim and say, okay, you have a drug
addiction but I won't care about your family, I won't care
about your mental disease or that you don't have a job, I just
care that you have a drug problem--you will not be able to keep
that person off of drugs.
Mr. Scott. But if you do the comprehensive services, you
will reduce drug----
Dr. Volkow. Significantly. And I just put that story. I
mean, in medicine it's rare to have such a successful story.
You are bringing the rate of drug use sevenfold lower. I mean,
it's not half, it's sevenfold lower. Reincarceration to half.
Mr. Scott. Now, Mr. Batten, you indicated that it's
important to coordinate the services. Could you give us an
example of different agencies involved in this coordination?
Mr. Batten. Well, one of the examples that Dr. Volkow
mentioned is critical; for example, drug courts. The reason
drug courts are so effective is that they coordinate the
efforts of the judiciary, probation and parole, the treatment
agencies, and all other organizations that are involved with
that particular individual. What they do is they engage the
individual and keep them involved in this process over an
extended period of time, which today continues to be the single
biggest predictor of success.
When we do that on a State level with respect to
coordinating our efforts, as we have done in the past with an
initiative in Virginia called SABER, we were able to bring
together and sit at the table the State's Attorney General, the
Department of Corrections, Department of Juvenile Justice, our
own agency, the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation
& Substance Abuse Services, and design a program that led to
the screening and assessment of all individuals that presented
with substance abuse issues, got them engaged in treatment and
referred to appropriate services.
So there are numerous examples where we have been able to
do this. It has to do with ensuring that the proper people are
at the table to sit down to plan the services and then to be
able to implement those services.
Mr. Scott. Now, I assume that it is important to have
professional qualifications to provide these services. Is that
right?
Mr. Batten. There's a place for everybody at the table, Mr.
Scott. It is important to have people with professional
credentials at the table, but it's also appropriate to have
people from the faith-based community at the table, individuals
from the recovering community at the table. Everybody needs to
be at the table in a coordinated way. The professional
treatment services provide important services, but when we all
work together, it works very well.
Mr. Scott. Should you lower professional credentials to--is
there anything good about reducing professional credentials in
coordinating the services, or are professional credentials
important?
Mr. Batten. I think professional credentialed individuals
are important for the level of care that needs to be provided
to individuals who have complex needs. As Dr. Volkow had
indicated, when you have an individual who has co-occurring
problems, you have to have individuals who understand the
interplay of the substance use disorder and the mental health
disorder at the same time. And if you lower credentials for
particular kinds of cases, you run the risk of not addressing
the core issues with that particular individual.
Mr. Scott. Is there any reason to backtrack on anti-
discrimination provisions in employment?
Mr. Batten. I'm not sure----
Mr. Scott. If we were to fund programs, is there any
justification for allowing Federal grantees to discriminate in
employment?
Mr. Batten. I think, again, it would----
Mr. Scott. Is the ability to discriminate based on race or
religion an important initiative from the National Association
of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors?
Mr. Batten. I don't think that--I'm not familiar with that
position on the part of the National Association of State
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors.
Mr. Scott. They're not suggesting to us that we ought to
allow Federal grantees to go around discriminating based on
race or religion?
Mr. Batten. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Scott. I just have one other question, if I could. And,
Mr. Batten, you indicated in your written testimony $1 spent on
treatment yields $7 on future savings. Can you or somebody else
give us an idea of where we would save money if we actually
reduce the use of drug abuse?
Mr. Batten. Well, I'm sure others can chime in with that,
but failures revolve through our systems over and over and over
again when, if you just delayed the revolving door, to a
certain extent you would save a significant amount of money,
because a lot of the money associated with individuals in our
system is the time that they spent in jail, the time that they
spent in emergency rooms, the time they spent impacting all of
our social services. If you can intervene with the individual
and reduce recidivism and reduce that revolving door, then
those are cases that don't consume those resources. That's part
of where that $7 comes from.
Another part of where that $7 comes from is that those
individuals, in the course of their treatment, are going to be
reentering society, they're going to be working, they're going
to be paying child support, they're going to be doing a variety
of things. So I think the $7 figure is conservative. But that's
where our savings are, just simple intervention. If we could,
for example, reduce the number of individuals going into our
prisons in Virginia by 1,300 cases a year--and you've heard
testimony here today about the number of inmates who have these
problems--we could save the cost of a single prison. And the
cost of a single prison, as you are aware, is astronomical. So
the potential savings in this area are extraordinarily
significant.
Mr. Scott. Does anyone else want to comment?
Dr. Volkow. I want to just make a comment because I think
this is very important when we're dealing with issues of cost
effectiveness. There's something that's very difficult to
quantify--which is exactly exemplified by the witness, that
notion of the disruption that it creates to a family to have
one of the parents incarcerated. Not only incarcerated, but not
even addressing the issue of substance abuse. The cost to those
children, for example, in special education, the cost to them
in terms of emotional suffering--how do you quantify that?
And also, if you are a juvenile offender, the cost of that
juvenile offender vis-a-vis not having the ability to educate
themselves at that stage in life, where you're actually
building up for the future is basically almost in many cases
irreversible.
So, I mean, it goes beyond putting a dollar amount into
these things.
Mr. Coble. Ms. Hogan, do you----
Ms. Hogan. I just wanted to add that the cost to keep--if I
had not gotten comprehensive family-based treatment, the cost
for me to be incarcerated would be about $35,000 a year.
Mr. Coble. Ms. Hogan, I was going to ask you, are your
children with you today?
Ms. Hogan. Oh, yes, they are.
Mr. Coble. I'd like to----
Ms. Hogan. Oh, not today. No, unfortunately they are home
from school. [Laughter.]
Mr. Coble. Well, folks, Mr. Scott and I and counsel
appreciate what you all have done. Let me just conclude with
this comment. And this is what frustrates me about--I have many
frustrations about addiction, but one of the most prominent
ones is the fact that it seems to know no respect for anyone.
It cuts across racial lines--black, white, red, yellow; it cuts
across social lines--impoverished, wealthy. I've known poor
people who are unemployed who became addicted; conversely, I've
known well-educated people, Mr. Scott, fully employed,
independently wealthy: addicted. And that makes it an even more
difficult target, I think, to nail.
But I thank you all for your testimony. We very much
appreciate your attendance today. In order to ensure a full
record of adequate consideration of this important issue, the
record will be left open for additional submissions for 7 days.
So any written questions that a Member may want to submit to
you all, or conversely, if you all want to submit additional
information to us, please do so within the 7-day time frame.
The concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 1704, the
``Second Chance Act of 2005'' (Part II): An Examination of Drug
Treatment Programs Needed to Ensure Successful Re-entry.
Thank you all again, not only for the witnesses, but for
those in the audience, for your attendance as well. And the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for your dedication to
developing an effective prisoner reentry system in this country and for
the bi-partisan, open-minded approach you and your staff have taken in
doing so. I also want to thank you for holding this second hearing this
Congress on prisoner reentry issues, and in particular for this hearing
emphasizing the importance of drug treatment in assuring that released
offenders remain crime free and live productive lives. I fully expect
that we will hear today what has been clear for some time now--that
drug treatment for returning offenders greatly reduces recidivism and
saves more money than it costs in avoided law enforcement and
incarceration expenditures.
While assisting returning offenders is a cost-effective reason to
develop and expand effective prisoner reentry programs, I know that you
are as aware as I am, Mr. Chairman, that the most important reason for
doing so is because it better assures that members of the public will
not be victims of crime due to recidivism.
This year, close to 700,000 people will leave prison in the U.S.
Most of them are ill-prepared to succeed in earning a living and
leading a law-abiding life, and the resources available to assist them
re-enter successfully are very limited. The addition of a felony record
and a prison stay certainly does not assist their job or social
development prospects. So, with no or limited education, resources, job
skills, federal benefits disqualifications due to drug or other
convictions, and often no family or community support, not
surprisingly, as many as two-thirds of released prisoners are
rearrested for new crimes within 3 years of their release.
Although the national crime rate has fallen significantly over the
last decade, we are seeing a continuing and unprecedented increase in
our prison and jail populations. All of this focus on increasing
sentences has led us to the point that we now have, on a daily basis,
over 2.2 million people locked up in our nation's prisons and jails, a
5 fold increase over the past 20 years.
As a result of this focus on incarceration, the U.S. is the world's
leading incarcerator, by far, with an incarceration rate of 726 inmates
per 100,000 population in 2004. The closest competitor is Russia with
532 inmates per 100,000 population. The U.S. rate is almost 7 times
that of the industrialized nations to which we are most similar--Canada
and western Europe. The rate per 100,000 population is 142 in England/
Wales, 117 in Australia, 116 in Canada, 91 in Germany, and 85 in
France.
Despite all of our tough sentencing for crimes, over 95% of inmates
will be released at some point. The question is whether they re-enter
society in a context that better prepares them and assists them in
leading law-abiding lives, or continue the cycle of \2/3\ returning in
3 years? So, if we are going to continue to send more and more people
to prison with longer and longer sentences, we should do as much as we
reasonably can to assure that when they do return they don't go back to
prison due to new crimes.
Mr. Chairman, as I expect we will see from the testimony today, we
have the experience, the evidence and the experts to show that we can
reduce recidivism through smart reentry programming. What's needed are
the authorizations and the resources to carry out the programming. The
Second Chance Act, H.R. 1704, of which you and I both are cosponsors,
is a bi-partisan bill supported by a broad-based coalition of
organizations and individuals, liberal and conservative, who recognize
the importance of our moving forward on this issue. I believe this
hearing provides important part of the foundation for our taking the
next step toward passing a well-founded, effective reentry bill. I look
forward to the testimony of our witnesses today, Mr. Chairman, and to
working with you to pass the Second Chance Act into law. Thank you.
__________
Prepared Statement of Scott A. Sylak, Executive Director,
Lucas County TASC, Inc.
introduction
Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, Members of the Subcommittee,
I am Scott Sylak and I serve as the Executive Director of Lucas County
TASC, Inc. in Toledo, Ohio. I am also the President of National TASC
(Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities). National TASC is a
nonprofit association representing individual and agency programs
across the United States. National TASC and its members aim to improve
the professional delivery of screening, assessment and case management
services to justice-involved persons with substance abuse or behavioral
health problems.
Thank you for holding hearings regarding offender reentry and
substance abuse treatment and the need to assure that offenders make a
successful reentry when released from prison or jail. National TASC
appreciates this focus on securing substance abuse treatment,
especially because an estimated 80% of the state prison population
report histories of substance abuse, 90% fail to obtain those services
while incarcerated. It is estimated that only 10% of offenders receive
appropriate community linkage and follow-up services upon release. We
can do more to use proven and effective techniques that have been
employed by TASC programs in many jurisdictions to reduce the number of
unmanaged reentry cases in need of services and to improve the outlook
for a substantial number of offenders who reenter society in need of
substance abuse services.
National TASC supports the Second Chance Act as critically
important legislation that can address multiple challenges related to
the return of incarcerated persons from prisons to their communities. A
majority of those returning are young, lack a job, have two or more
minor children and have a lower educational attainment and housing
stability history than those who have never been incarcerated. More
than two out of three returning from prison have a substance abuse or
mental health history that will require treatment and support. Many
also need medications to treat HIV and other communicable diseases. A
growing number of released offenders do not have housing and become
homeless after discharge from criminal justice custody. Without case
management and appropriate services, this population will continue to
drive up costs to our communities. Combining targeted clinical case
management with services and resources that prevent new crime can solve
many of these problems.
national tasc's recommendations
1. Develop a comprehensive approach that ensures coordination of funds
and services at the state level.
In many states TASC programs already exist that can serve as a
flexible approach to management and integration of offender services,
the criminal justice system and other systems (justice, health,
education, housing, employment, family services and community-based
networks). TASC elements have been incorporated in many local pretrial,
probation, parole, community corrections and substance abuse programs
as well as drug courts, juvenile and family services interventions.
TASC supports the Second Chance Act's design to encourage reentry
partnerships among many federal, state and local agencies. TASC also
knows that this process does not necessarily create the need for a
large, costly bureaucracy. For substance abusing offenders, a central
focus will be the development of capable professionals who serve
released persons and their families as well as working with faith,
community and mentoring programs. Bridging entities such as TASC build
working partnerships between groups and organizations that serve
individuals in the justice system. Examples of this can already be seen
in the Breaking the Cycle Program in Birmingham, Alabama as well as
throughout the state of Ohio.
2. Prevent recidivism by addressing known barriers to offender reentry
such as substance abuse.
States can provide new ways to build effective services using the
core components of cost-effective TASC programs as models. This will
encourage development of stronger clinical reentry case management in
communities already engaged in this effort. In many areas TASC programs
provide communities with independent assessment, clinical case
management and system integration techniques designed to intervene in
the lives of offenders with addictions or behavioral health needs.
TASC-style case management provides coordinated individual assessments,
appropriate service delivery and resources targeted to follow offenders
in need from prison to their home communities. This form of case
management helps ensure that offenders who are released from jail and
prison have the resources and supervision necessary to become
productive members of their communities.
3. Encourage reentering persons to access appropriate opportunities for
post-incarceration services.
This bill provides opportunities for states and localities to
develop clinical responses across a variety of systems to provide
incentives for more effective offender release procedures. It
encourages application of the best practices from corrections and
parole to substance abuse treatment and clinical case management.
Experience with the TASC clinical case management model indicates that
the complex systems of housing, employment, substance abuse, mental
health and child welfare must be integrated into offender reentry
management. The Second Chance Act allows each of these systems to serve
their primary functions while building their services, furthering the
goals of community safety, offender reentry and client rehabilitation.
It also encourages these sectors to understand the need for offender
accountability to the court and to the community while maintaining
focus on the clinical needs of the individual.
4. Prioritize the use of scarce criminal justice resources to provide
drug treatment access to those most vulnerable to relapse.
TASC programs operate within the parameters of the larger justice
and treatment systems. For over thirty years TASC programs have served
as a catalyst to develop more effective strategies for delivering
services to persons involved in the justice system and their families.
Although TASC programs have served to educate communities about their
clients, local and state executive agencies are often responsible for
funding, oversight and management of offender services, treatment and
resources. Consequently there is a complex political and cultural
climate in many communities that makes it difficult to achieve adequate
client services for reentering offenders. By using independent case
management, funded programs will help overcome inadequate or
inconsistent services. This process can ensure that those who need
treatment the most are the most likely to receive it.
5. Manage substance abuse, mental health, housing, medical, employment
and family needs.
By providing for clinical reentry case management, reentry agency
partners and TASC agencies can accomplish the following:
Screen and assess for housing needs and develop a
short- and long-term plan for residential housing to make sure
that released offenders to not become homeless.
Evaluate the complex problems and diagnoses related
to substance abuse and mental health disorders in individuals
and their families and refer clients to appropriate treatment,
ensuring that the system finds the problems before offenders
recidivate.
Assess employment readiness, job placement needs and
refer to workforce development specialists or education
programs that are more tailored to individual strengths,
improving the likelihood of employment.
Follow-up progress with case management that provides
incremental steps in the domains of housing, treatment,
employment and family stability.
Monitor and report progress to ensure compliance with
expectations of the justice system. Routine reporting will
prompt sanctions if offenders fail to make progress.
Advocate and provide linkages to the community to
further help offenders make the transition back into society.
6. Build elements into every funded program that measure accountability
data and improve outcomes.
In order to absorb the impact of more than 600,000 reentering
persons each year, communities must develop and coordinate effective
transitional partnerships that assist individuals in meeting justice
system requirements while successfully negotiating the necessary
transition to communities, families and employment. This includes the
following critical elements.
A process to coordinate justice, treatment and other
systems.
Procedures for providing information and cross
training to justice, treatment and other systems.
A broad base of support from the justice system with
a formal structure for effective communication.
A broad base of support from the treatment and other
social service communities.
Assessment and case management independent from
justice and treatment.
Policies and procedures for regular staff training.
A management information system with a program
evaluation design.
Clearly defined client eligibility criteria.
Screening procedures for identification of candidates
within the justice system.
Documented procedures for assessment and referral.
Policies, procedures and protocols for monitoring
TASC clients' alcohol and drug use through chemical testing.
The development of these systems between government and private and
local agencies is one of the most difficult aspects of reentry
management. Despite this challenge, there is evidence that a wider
application of proven justice system innovations can result in more
positive outcomes for this population.
conclusion
On behalf of National TASC, I wish to thank the Subcommittee for
holding a hearing on substance abuse systems and their role in offender
reentry. Thank you for allowing my participation.
__________
Prepared Statement of William F. Nelson, Director of Correctional
Services, Volunteers of America
Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Committee,
I want to commend you for focusing today's hearing on the importance of
drug treatment to the successful and safe reentry of ex-offenders into
our communities and neighborhoods. The Second Chance Act (HR 1704) will
be an important tool that will help entire neighborhoods, in
partnership with law enforcement agencies and social services delivery
systems, to find community solution alternatives to criminal activity
associated with drug dependency.
My name is Bill Nelson and I am the Director of Correctional
Services for Volunteers of America- Minnesota. For the past 32 years, I
have served as the director of a federal pre-release center (halfway
house), a privately operated jail for women serving Ramsey county (St.
Paul), and a residential treatment center for women leaving the
lifestyle of prostitution. I am pleased to share with the Subcommittee
information about the Women's Recovery Center (``WRC''). The WRC offers
participants chemical dependency treatment and sexual trauma therapy,
assistance in restoring family ties and developing living skills and
competencies to support them in leaving a life of prostitution.
Operating for the past six years, the WRC has an 85% rate of success in
achieving sobriety and leaving the lifestyle of prostitution. The
uniqueness of this program and its treatment approach has attracted
worldwide and national attention from a variety of levels of
government.
Many studies point to the fact that a very large percentage of
offenders commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
They are punished often through commitment to prison, fulfill the terms
of their sentence, and are released without any significant attention
paid to their chemical dependency. While it may be said that chemical
dependency does not directly cause crime, there is a significantly high
association between drugs and crime. Further, professionals in the
criminal justice system observe that repetitive crime coincides with
continued use of chemicals.
prostitution--a case in point
Prostitution is both a complex and costly crime. Though offenders
typically are charged at a misdemeanor level, the cost to society is
enormous. In one benchmark study on criminal justice costs for
prostitution, The Sentencing Project in Washington DC estimated that in
Chicago, the total cost for each prostitution arrest was $1,554 in
2001, for a system total of $9,089,252. While most prostitution
activities are addressed on the local level, the related drug activity
frequently serves as a feeder for prison commitments based on related
crimes, including sales and distribution. Although some offenders go to
prison, many do not and are absorbed in the local criminal justice
network through repetitive jail time.
Since 1984 Volunteers of America - Minnesota has managed a jail/
workhouse for women who are committed for periods of up to one year.
This private institution serves Ramsey County (St. Paul). In 1998 the
jail administration conducted an informal study of inmates who had been
repetitively committed for engaging in prostitution. In every case they
were committed for drug possession, sales, or related, and were
themselves drug users. Based on the study it became obvious that drugs
and prostitution were co-occurring phenomena. The number of commitments
ranged from 4 to 14 among 12 inmates in the study. The cost
implications were startling. Each inmate had cumulatively served 4-6
years of jail time through repetitive commitments. At an average per
diem jail cost of $55, this represented a cumulative cost of $80,000 -
$120,000 per person with a likelihood of additional costs in the
future. Each inmate admitted to being drug addicted.
a promising solution
Following the study, Volunteers of America - Minnesota proposed a
new approach, which emphasized specialized chemical dependency
treatment and presented the idea to the 1999 session of the Minnesota
legislature. Funding was approved for a pilot program identified as a
prostitution recovery center and the program was launched in the year
2000. The application of the ``treatment'' followed a blueprint of new
thinking on gender specific chemical dependency treatment for women
identified as the ``relational model''.
The focus of the residential treatment center is chemical
dependency treatment and currently serves 24 clients at a time. All
clients have very substantial criminal justice background, are
homeless, and most typically, drug addicted and have a long history
with multiple incarcerations.
The mission of the Center was established as follows:
To provide therapeutic and life enhancing services that assist
women in achieving improved physical, spiritual, mental health,
sobriety, and independent living skills and a life without
prostitution.
In establishing this mission it is noteworthy that ``a life without
prostitution'' was identified as an outcome and not a goal. Chemical
dependency treatment along with the other elements of the program was
the focus. Once these issues were to be addressed, it was hypothesized
that the criminal justice side of the issue would be effectively
addressed, as a consequence.
results
In 2005 a follow-up study was conducted on 165 women who had been
discharged from the program and back in the community for at least one
year. Criminal justice data was obtained from the Minnesota Department
of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to determine whether
the individuals had any further criminal justice involvement. Using
this public information it was determined that 85% had no further
criminal justice involvement.
conclusion
Over the years crime has increased exponentially. Associated with
this is the geometric rise in costs concomitant with all levels of
criminal justice response. It has been said that we cannot ``build''
our way out of the problem by building additional prison space. Once
this space is built and utilized it is likely that it becomes a
permanent fixture in state and federal budgets. Fundamental crime
prevention can be more effective by applying proven techniques such as
chemical dependency treatment as part of an alternative to
incarceration or as a post incarceration strategy to prevent further
recidivism.
Again, I commend the Subcommittee for its work today in shining a
spotlight on the critical importance of drug treatment interventions in
putting an end to the ``revolving door'' of incarceration. At
Volunteers of America- Minnesota, we would like to be continuing
resource to this Subcommittee in any way we can to further support for,
and enactment, of the Second Chance Act.
Addendum to the testimony of Pamela Rodriguez, Executive Vice
President, Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC), Inc.
TASC Brief Overview: Studies on Effectiveness of Case Management,
submitted by Pamela Rodriguez, Executive Vice President, Treatment
Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC), Inc.
TASC Brief Overview: Studies on Effectiveness of Treatment, submitted
by Pamela Rodriguez, Executive Vice President, Treatment Alternatives
for Safe Communities (TASC), Inc.
GLATTC Research Update: Coerced Drug Treatment for Offenders: Does It
Work?, submitted by Pamela Rodriguez, Executive Vice President,
Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC), Inc.
Re-Entry Policy Council: Substance Abuse and Re-Entry Statistics,
submitted by the Council of State Governments